The care group model davis

933 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
933
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The care group model davis

  1. 1. The Care Group Model Alyssa L. Davis Health Advisor, Concern Worldwide Burundi Operations Research: Methods, Challenges, Emerging Lessons and Opportunities CORE Group Spring Meeting May 12, 2011 Operations Research in Burundi
  2. 2. <ul><li>A Common </li></ul><ul><li>Community Health Worker or Volunteer </li></ul>Unrealistic Workloads Inadequate Training Insufficient Supervision Lack of Support Systems
  3. 3. Basic Description of a Care Group <ul><li>A Care Group is a group of 10-15 volunteers, community health educators who meet regularly with a project staff person for training, supervision and support. </li></ul><ul><li>Care Groups are different from typical “Mother’s Groups” in that each volunteer is responsible for regularly visiting 10-15 of her neighbors , sharing what she has learned and facilitating behavior change at the household level .  </li></ul><ul><li>Household visits are targeted to the primary child caregiver , usually a mother, but all family members are invited to participate in the home visits. </li></ul>Source: Tom Davis, Melanie Morrow and Carolyn Wetzel. Presentation “Care Groups: The Essential Ingredients.” April 2010.
  4. 4. <ul><li>Care Groups create a multiplying effect to equitably reach every family with women of reproductive age and/or children under five years of age with individualized Behavior Change Communication (BCC) and social support. </li></ul>Basic Description of a Care Group <ul><li>As interventions are phased in, Care Group volunteers become neighborhood resource people for an integrated package of health education and referral services. </li></ul><ul><li>Packaging several interventions through a single delivery strategy has been noted to make economic sense, but there is evidence that this can lead to increased inequities unless population coverage of the implementation strategy is very high (Source: Victora, C.G., Fenn, B., Bryce, J. Kirkwood, B.R. Co-coverage of prevention interventions and implications for child survival strategies: evidence from national surveys. Lancet 2005, Volume 366, Issue 9495, Pages 1460-1466). </li></ul>Source: Tom Davis, Melanie Morrow and Carolyn Wetzel. Presentation “Care Groups: The Essential Ingredients.” April 2010.
  5. 5. Under-five deaths could be could be preventing in 42 countries with 90% of worldwide child deaths in 2000 through achievement of universal coverage with individual interventions. Source of Table: Jones G, Steketee RW, Black RE, Bhutta ZA, Morris SS. The Bellagio Child Survival Study Group. How many child deaths can we prevent this year? Lancet 2003; 362 : 65-71. The Care Group Model has been used to promote and support highly effective child survival interventions—and could be used to promote and support even more in the future. Focus on High Impact Interventions in Child Survival
  6. 6. Contact Intensity Index Source: Jim Ricca, Senior Technical Advisor, MCHIP   Project Country 1. Health facility improvement 2. Governance 3. Behavior Change – one-on-one 4. Outreach Services 5. Comm. treatment 6. Comm. Finance 7. Behavior change - mass media   Nepal x x x x   x x   Mali x x x x   x     Benin x   x       x   Rwanda 2   x x x x       Ethiopia x x x x   x     Cambodia 3   x x x x       Madagascar x         x x   Guinea x x x x   x     Senegal x x x x x x x   Cambodia 2 x x x x   x     Rwanda 1 x x x   x x     Kenya x               Haiti x x   x x   x   Mozambique x x   x         Malawi x x   x x x     Cambodia 1 x x x x           More successful 82% 82% 91% 73% 36% 73% 36%   Less successful 100% 80% 20% 80% 40% 20% 20%   Odds Ratio 0.8 1.0 4.6 0.9 0.9 3.6 1.8   Fisher Exact Test NS NS 0.05 NS NS 0.08 NS   Significant at the level p < 0.05   Significant at the level p < 0.10  
  7. 7. The Care Group network of volunteers extends the REACH of the formal health system. Health Center Care Group Volunteers Community Health Workers Household Child Caregivers
  8. 8. 26 Project Staff Train 200 Care Groups -> 2,600 Care Group Volunteers Train 34,000 Households -> Total Target Population Reached: 40,000 Women of Reproductive Age 24,000 Child under Five Years.
  9. 9. Mabayi Health District Child Survival Project: The Integrated Care Group Model <ul><li>Concern Worldwide Burundi identified the Care Group Model as a powerful strategy for community mobilization for widespread behavior change that would be suitable to the context of Mabayi Health District. </li></ul><ul><li>However, the project staff structure was recognized to be unrealistic for the MOH to maintain after the life of a donor/NGO project. </li></ul><ul><li>The idea for an Integrated Care Group Model that could be tested through Operations Research was developed. </li></ul>Source: Philip Wegner, Concern Worldwide
  10. 10. 22 Health Center Titulaires Train 153 Community Health Workers -> 153 Community Health Workers Train 300 Care Groups -> 2,952 Care Group Volunteers Train 44,000 Households -> Total Target Population Reached: 53,000 Women of Reproductive Age 41,000 Child under Five Years
  11. 11. Contributions to National Health Policy <ul><li>The National MOH is currently revising its Community Health Policy, including Community-Integrated Management of Childhood Illness roll-out strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Community Health Workers have existed as a component of the MOH community health policy on paper, but an effective Community Health Worker strategy has not been successfully operationalized at scale in the country </li></ul><ul><li>There is widespread acknowledgement within the MOH and its partners that CHWs currently have unrealistic workloads, inadequate training, insufficient supervision and lack of support systems </li></ul><ul><li>The Integrated Care Group Model has been identified in national MOH discussions as a promising model for implementing a realistic Community Health Worker strategy </li></ul>Source: Alyssa L. Davis, Concern Worldwide
  12. 12. Operations Research Objective <ul><li>To test the effectiveness and sustainability of an adapted, lower-input Care Group Model to improve both knowledge and practice of key child health and nutrition behaviors as compared to the traditional, higher-input Care Group Model. </li></ul>Source: Alyssa L. Davis, Concern Worldwide
  13. 13. Research Questions <ul><li>There are four primary research questions: </li></ul><ul><li>Does the adapted, lower-input Care Group Model achieve the same improvement in the knowledge of key child health and nutrition behaviours among caregivers of children 0-23 months as the traditional, higher-input Care Group Model? </li></ul><ul><li>Does the adapted, lower-input Care Group Model achieve the same improvement in the practice of key child health and nutrition behaviours among caregivers of children 0-23 months as the traditional, higher-input Care Group Model? </li></ul><ul><li>Does the adapted, lower-input Care Group Model achieve the same level of Care Group functionality as the traditional, higher-input Care Group Model? </li></ul><ul><li>Does the adapted, lower-input Care Group Model achieve the same level of Care Group sustainability as the traditional, higher-input Care Group Model? </li></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><li>Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference in the coverage of the knowledge and practice of key health and nutrition behaviors among caregivers of children 0-23 months reached by the Integrated Care Group Model as compared to the Traditional Care Group Model after two years of implementation. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hypothesis 1 will be tested by data collected through a Knowledge Practice Coverage (KPC) survey of caregivers of children 0-23 months of age at baseline and endline (non-inferiority testing; sample size of 320 in each study arm). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference in the functionality or sustainability of Care Groups implemented through the adapted Care Group Model as compared to Care Groups implemented through the traditional Care Group Model after two years of implementation. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hypothesis 2 will be tested by data collected through regular monthly monitoring systems ( Key Operational Monitoring Indicators) . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Supportive Qualitative Data: In-depth interviews and focus groups will be conducted with District Health Team members and community stakeholders . Benefits and challenges associated with implementation of each Care Group Model will be identified. </li></ul>Hypothesises and Methods
  15. 15. Key Operational Monitoring Indicators Operation Research Indicator Target Value Percentage of beneficiary households that received at least one Care Group Volunteer visit per month. 80% Percentage of Care Groups that held a meeting at least once per month. 80% Percentage of Care Group Volunteers that reported registration and C-HIS data to their supervising Promoter/CHW per month. 80% Percentage of CHWs that reported registration and C-HIS data to their associated Health Center per month. 80% Percentage of CHWs that attended at least one COSA meeting per month. 80% Percentage of Care Group Volunteers who received at least one visit from a Promoters/CHW per month. 80% Percentage of Care Group meetings that are conducted according to minimum standards of quality per month. 80% Percentage of Care Group registers that meet minimum standards of quality per month. 80% Percentage of CHW supervision visits to Care Group Volunteers conducted according to minimum standards of quality per month. 80%
  16. 16. Challenges <ul><li>Defining an Integrated Care Group Model that would be feasible to implement within the current health system structure </li></ul><ul><li>Getting buy in of key MOH stakeholders in a constantly changing environment—both in MOH appointments and policies </li></ul><ul><li>Changing guidance on IRB process; absence of a functional IRB in Burundi; delay in attaining IRB approval </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying an appropriate sampling methodology for the baseline survey that would allow for statistical significance and would be feasible to implement within a project context </li></ul><ul><li>Investing massive time and effort in the Operations Research baseline survey (640 households selected through simple random sampling) </li></ul><ul><li>Lacking exclusive control over monitoring data collection with the Integrated Care Group Model implementation structure </li></ul>Source: Alyssa L. Davis, Concern Worldwide
  17. 17. Lessons Learned <ul><li>Attaining IRB review and approval is challenging in a post-conflict setting where there is a dearth of ethics review institutions and systems </li></ul><ul><li>Measuring indicators with statistical significance might require statistical tests, sampling methodologies and sample sizes that are unusual for child survival projects </li></ul>Source: Concern Worldwide Burundi <ul><li>Conducting a separate Operations Research baseline survey is expensive in terms of budget, human resource and project effort costs </li></ul><ul><li>Operational indicators change over the course of implementation, especially when working in partnership with the MOH </li></ul>
  18. 18. Tips <ul><li>Identify an IRB well in advance, understand the submission protocol and consider the costs of the IRB review </li></ul><ul><li>Explore the possibility of establishing a relationship with an academic institution </li></ul>Source: Alyssa L. Davis, Concern Worldwide <ul><li>Critically assess the necessity of a separate Operations Research baseline/endline survey </li></ul><ul><li>Integrate Operations Research data collection into the regular project M&E systems as much as possible </li></ul><ul><li>Consider how Operations Research M&E burdens will be managed throughout project implementation: “If the Operations Research stops operations, it isn’t Operations Research!” </li></ul>
  19. 19. Murakoze chane! (Thank you very much) Source: Alyssa L. Davis, Concern Worldwide Source: Philip Wegner, Concern Worldwide … et bonne chance!

×